Compressible Navier-Stokes (Euler) Solver based on Deal.II Library - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Compressible Navier-Stokes (Euler) Solver based on Deal.II Library Lei Qiao Northwestern Polytechnical University T exas A&M University Xi’an, China College Station, T exas Fifth deal.II Users and Developers Workshop T exas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA August 5, 2015 1

Outline Motivation and Goal Current work Conclusion and TODOs 2

Motivation This is what I typically need to compute 3

The pain point Mesh generation: Time consuming Boring Experience depending Solution: Mesh adaptation — let solver tell what is good mesh 4

Deal.II the library • Mesh adaptation with tree data structure • FEM discretization • Parallelization and excellent scalability 5

Goal A N-S solver based on deal.II that: • Starts from initial value on coarse mesh • Converges to solution on a reasonable fine mesh adaptively • With High-order capability 6

Current work Governing Equation Solving technique Solver implementation Solver verification 7

Governing Equation Compressible Navier-Stokes Equation ∂ Q ( w ) + r · F ( w ) = S ( w ) ∂ t Use primitive variables as working var. w = ( u j , ρ , p ) T 8

Governing Equation The Flux F = F c − F v     ρ u ⊗ u + I p ρ u i u j + δ ij p  = F c ( w ) = ρ u ρ u i    ( E + p ) u ( E + p ) u i 9

Governing Equation The Flux F = F c − F v   τ ij 1 0 F v ( w ) =   Re ∗ τ ij u i + κ ∂ T ∞ ∂ x j With p T = γ R ρ τ ij = µ ( ∂ u i + ∂ u j ∂ u k ) + λδ ij ∂ x j ∂ x i ∂ x k 10

Governing Equation Weak form: , Find w ∈ S that satisfy On domain Ω ∂ Q l ( w ) ∂ F l,i ( w ) Z Z Z + = v l S l ( w ) v l v l ∂ t ∂ x i Ω Ω Ω ∀ v = v l ∈ T w = ( u j , ρ , p ) T 11

Governing Equation Weak form: Integrate by part to get boundary flux ∂ Q l ( w ) Z Z + v l F l,i ( w ) n i v l ∂ t Ω ∂ Ω ∂ v l Z Z F l,i ( w ) = v l S l ( w ) − ∂ x i Ω Ω 12

Governing Equation T reat boundary conditions and discontinuities on hanging node with this boundary flux Compute numerical flux with Roe scheme[1] 13

Governing Equation Boundary conditions: Far field: Riemann invariant Slip wall: Non-penetration u · n = 0 ρ out = ρ in p out = p in 14

Solving technique BDF-1 (Implicit Euler) time integration Newton linearization Direct linear solver from T rilinos* * Iterative solver doesn’t stable enough, only used for scalability test For steady run, time step size is determined according to norm of Newton update[2] 15

Solver implementation • Starts from step-33 of deal.II tutorial • Change working vars. from conservative ones to primitive ones • viscous flux • Riemann boundary condition • Roe flux[2] to replace the too viscous Lax flux • Parallelize: learned from step-40 • Version control with Git • CMake project • Regression test suit 16

Solver verification • Scalability • Manufactured solution[3] • Subsonic • Supersonic • Adaptive simulation over circle • Flow over foil NACA2412 17

Scalability 22,288 cells 91,312 DoFs GMRES solver from T rilinos with DD+ILUT precond. 18

Solver verification • Manufactured solution[3]  u ( x, y )= u 0 + u x sin( a ux π x )+ u y cos( a uy π y )+ u xy cos( a uxy π xy )   v ( x, y )= v 0 + v x cos( a vx π x )+ v y sin( a vy π y ) + v xy cos( a vxy π xy )  w = J ( x, y ) = ρ ( x, y )= ρ 0 + ρ x sin( a ρ x π x )+ ρ y cos( a ρ y π y )+ ρ xy cos( a ρ xy π xy )   p ( x, y )= p 0 + p x cos( a px π x )+ p y sin( a py π y ) + p xy sin( a pxy π xy )  Solver J h ( x, y ) S ( x, y ) = ∂ Q ( J ) ∂ Q ( w ) + r · F ( J ) + r · F ( w ) = S ( w ) ∂ t ∂ t 19

Solver verification • Manufactured solution[3]  u ( x, y )= u 0 + u x sin( a ux π x )+ u y cos( a uy π y )+ u xy cos( a uxy π xy )   v ( x, y )= v 0 + v x cos( a vx π x )+ v y sin( a vy π y ) + v xy cos( a vxy π xy )  w = J ( x, y ) = ρ ( x, y )= ρ 0 + ρ x sin( a ρ x π x )+ ρ y cos( a ρ y π y )+ ρ xy cos( a ρ xy π xy )   p ( x, y )= p 0 + p x cos( a px π x )+ p y sin( a py π y ) + p xy sin( a pxy π xy )  Choosing different Constants to get subsonic or supersonic case 20

Solver verification • Manufactured solution • Subsonic • convergence 
 order 21

Solver verification • Manufactured solution • Supersonic • convergence 
 order 22

Solver verification • Adaptive simulation over circle • C1 mapping on wall boundary • Subsonic: Mach = 0.1 • Almost inviscid: Cv=1e-6 just for stabilization • Converged Cd=0.00029 which ideal value is zero 23

Solver verification • Adaptive simulation over cylinder Converged density contour 24

Solver verification • Adaptive simulation over cylinder Converge history of density contour and mesh adaptation 25

Solver verification • Flow over NACA2412 foil • Subsonic: Mach=0.3 Converged pressure contour 26

Solver verification • Flow over NACA2412 foil • Subsonic: Mach=0.3 Oscillation may be caused by geometry non-smoothness 27

Solver verification • Flow over NACA2412 foil • Subsonic: Mach=0.3 • Almost inviscid: Cv=3e-6 just for stabilization • Converged Cd=0.00025 which ideal value is zero • Converged Cl=0.2576, Cm=0.05235 • As a reference, xFoil[4] gives • Cd=-0.00076 • Cl=0.2704 • Cm=0.0585 28

Conclusion • A prototype NS solver based on deal.II is constructed • The solver could run in parallel but the solver doesn’t scale perfectly • High order convergence is confirmed by MMS • Solving process could start from very coarsen mesh and go on with mesh adaptation • The solver can give out reasonable aerodynamics data 29

T oDos • Stable and efficient preconditioner for iterative solver (Now my hope is on MDF ordering of ILU) • Describe wall boundary with NURBS geometry • Non-slip boundary condition • Anisotropic adaptation for boundary layer 30

Reference 1. J. Blazek. Computational Fluid Dynamics: Principles and Applications (Second Edition). Elsevier Science, Oxford, second edition edition, 2005. ISBN 978-0-08- 044506-9. 2. J. Gatsis. Preconditioning T echniques for a Newton–Krylov Algorithm for the Compressible Navier–Stokes Equations. PhD thesis, University of T oronto, 2013. 3. C. J. Roy, C. C. Nelson, T . M. Smith, and C. C. Ober. Verification of Euler/Navier- stokes codes using the method of manufactured solutions. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 44(6):599--620, 2004. 4. M. Drela, H. Youngren. http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/ xfoil/ 31

Thanks 32